A Real Dialogue Would Have Been BetterÂ
President Carter's speech at Brandeis University on Tuesday should have been a real debate. Instead, it was a one-way dialogue with pre-screened questions and no rebuttals. Had Carter allowed the dialogue he says he wants to provoke, we all could have learned something.
Not only did Carter refuse to debate me; he refused to debate anybody. Now some of the same hard-left radical students and faculty who invited him to speak at Brandeis-and tried to censor me and others-have invited Norman Finkelstein to deliver an address at the university.
In the announcement of Finkelstein's scheduled appearance, Kevin Conway-a spokesperson for the "Radical Student Alliance"-described Finkelstein as "a world renowned expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Nothing could be further from the truth.
Finkelstein has never even visited Israel. When he recently tried to testify as an "expert witness" for Hamas, a federal judge concluded that he did not have any expertise, essentially characterizing him as a crackpot. This was consistent with other, similar characterizations.
A New York Times review of Finkelstein's book The Holocaust Industry observed:
. . . [Finkelstein] combines an old-hat 1960's view of Israel as the outpost of American imperialism with a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, ''The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" . . . verges on paranoia and would serve anti-Semites around the world . . . This book is, in a word, an ideological fanatic's view of other people's opportunism, by a writer so reckless and ruthless in his attacks . . .[1]
Â
Marc Fisher of the Washington Post described Finkelstein as " a writer celebrated by neo-Nazi groups for his Holocaust revisionism and comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany."[2] Leon Wieseltier of the New Republic wrote: "You don't know who Finkelstein is. He's poison, he's a disgusting self-hating Jew, he's something you find under a rock."[3]
Others describe Finkelstein's theories as "crackpot ideas, some of them mirrored almost verbatim in the propaganda put out by neo-Nazis all over the world";[4] one scholar added:
As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein . . . the appropriate response is not (exhilarating) "debate" but (tedious) examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention . . . No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotations in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites . . .[5]
Anyone can confirm these assessments on YouTube.com, where a clip is posted of Finkelstein's appearance on a Holocaust denial program on Lebanese TV, where he claimed that Holocaust survivors were liars and that Swiss banks-which have agreed to pay back millions of dollars belonging to deceased Jewish depositors and their heirs-never withheld any money from Jews.
Not surprisingly, Finkelstein's name was listed among the participants-along with neo-Nazi David Duke-in the infamous Iranian Holocaust denial hate orgy. But he couldn't attend because he was too busy trying to testify, as a crackpot witness, for Hamas.
He also loves Hezbollah, the terror organization whose leader said: "If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[6] Finkelstein has praised the group, saying: "[T]he honorable thing now is to show solidarity with Hezbollah as the US and Israel target it for liquidation. Indeed, looking back my chief regret is that I wasn't even more forceful in publicly defending Hezbollah against terrorist intimidation and attack."[7]
Finkelstein is not "world-renowned," except among Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, radical Islamofascists and other assorted anti-Semites, who constitute his primary readership and audience. He recently commissioned a cartoon-showing me masturbating in ecstatic joy to television pictures of dead Lebanese-by a neo-Nazi cartoonist and friend of his who won second place in the Iranian Holocaust denial cartoon contest.
Kevin Conway and his fellow radicals know all this about Finkelstein, and yet they stand behind him, praise him and invite him to Brandeis. You are judged, as they say, by the company you keep.
Perhaps Conway and his fellow "radicals" don't mind being associated with Finkelstein, but I doubt that former President Carter would approve of any association with him. Unlike Jimmy Carter, Norman Finkelstein is an enemy of peace, civility and decency.
The truth is that President Carter and I agree on many issues. We both want a two-state solution to the conflict. We both want the occupation to end. We both oppose new Israeli settlements. We both wish to see the emergence of a democratic, economically viable Palestinian state.
Fundamentally, we are both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. There need not be any contradiction between the two.
But President Carter and I have our differences, too. I favored a compromise peace based on the offer by President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000-2001. Carter, however, defends Yasser Arafat's refusal to accept these generous terms, or to make a counteroffer.
In fact, Carter never mentions in his book that the Palestinians could have had a state in 1938, 1948, 1967 and on several other occasions. Their leaders cared more about destroying Israel than they did about creating Palestine.
That is the core of the conflict. It is Palestinian terror, not Israeli policy, which prevents peace.
Carter chooses to believe Arafat's story over that of Clinton, Barak and Saudi Prince Bandar, who called Arafat's refusal a "crime." Why?
We know from Carter's biographer, Douglas Brinkley, that Carter and Arafat strategized together about how to improve the image of the PLO. It is highly likely, therefore, that Arafat sought Carter's advice on whether to accept or reject the Clinton/Barak offer.
Did Carter advise Arafat to walk away from a Palestinian state? Did he contribute to the new intifada, which claimed thousands of lives on both sides? That is an important question-one I would have asked Carter had I been given the chance.
President Carter also told the audience at Brandeis that he wanted to reduce America's role in the peace process in favor of Russia, the United Nations and the European Union. To me, that is not a serious proposal. As Carter himself showed during his presidency, American leadership is both positive and necessary.
I give President Carter credit for the concessions he made in his speech. He acknowledged that the use of the word "apartheid" in the title of his book might have caused offense. He apologized for the infamous passage on page 213, which condones Palestinian terrorism.
But the President Carter we saw at Brandeis was different from the President Carter the world has seen on Al-Jazeera. The Al-Jazeera Carter said that Palestinian missiles fired at Israeli civilians are not terrorism. The Al-Jazeera Carter refused to condemn suicide bombings on moral grounds.
Even at Brandeis, President Carter continued to make the kinds of inaccurate claims that run throughout his book. He said, for example, that Hamas began a sixteen-month a cease-fire in August 2004. He said nothing about Hamas rocket attacks in the weeks and months that followed, which killed innocent Israeli women and children.
He claimed that Israel's security barrier was designed to seize land, when in fact it was proposed by liberal and left wing Israelis, and aims only to protect civilians from bombings and sniper fire. Every inch of the barrier's route has to be justified by security needs, according to Israel's highest court.
President Carter also left out some important details. Not once, for example, did he mention the Palestinian refugee problem, which the Arab states still exploit against Israel. And not once did he mention Iran and the nuclear threat it poses-not just to Israel, but to the entire world.
It was not Israel that rejected U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which called for Israel to withdraw from territories-allowing for adjustments-that it won in 1967. It was the Palestinians, together with the other Arab nations, that said "no" to recognition, negotiation and peace.
I would like to join with President Carter in working for peace in the Middle East. But peace will not come if we insist on blaming one side in the conflict. And real dialogue, at Brandeis or in the Middle East, means talking with people you might not agree with.
It also means recognizing those who are real friends of peace and those who are its enemies.
Carter may not be responsible for the views of those who support his book-most recently, the terrorist group Islamic Jihad, who just claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in Eilat-but he should have known that his book would become a rallying cry for some of the most bigoted, anti-Semitic and extremist groups.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Bartov, Omer. "A Tale of Two Holocausts." New York Times (Aug. 6 2000). 8.
[2] Fisher, Marc. "Campus Should Cultivate Its Seeds of Debate." Washington Post (Dec. 3 2002) [Online article]. URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1254-2002Dec2¬Found=true
[3] Reported by Finkelstein himself. Accessible at: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=41
[4] Schoenfeld, Gabriel. "Holocaust Reparations," Commentary (Jan. 2001). 20.
[5] Novick, Peter. Offense Fenster und Tueren. Uben Norman Finkelstein Keuzzug, in: Petra Steinberger (ed.): Die Finkelstein-Debatte, (Piper verlag: Muenchen 2001), p. 159 (translated from German).
[6] Nasrallah, Hassan, quoted in Lappin, Elena. "The Enemy Within." New York Times (May 23 2004). 15.
[7] Finkelstein, Norman. "A Reply to Michael Young." [Online article]. URL: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=15
Â
Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. His most recent book is Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways (Norton, 2006)
Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 of “Ex-President for Saleâ€
Join the conversation and read Alan Dershowitz' exclusive six part series "Ex-President for Sale" on Gather at AlanDershowitz.gather.com 
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 82
Those who invite proven consistent and pathological liars to debate are also enemies of freedom.
One's right to invented opinions does not give one the right to invented facts.
Many people say Carter is a better ex-President than he was a President, and I agree that he has done a lot of worthy humanitarian work in the past years, but I believe lately he has begun to believe the media hype about himself – and that makes him a dangerous man and a threat to the true peaces processes in the Middle East. Being so widely respected, his "endorsement" of their tactics gives Holocaust deniers and terrorists organizations and governments hope that they might yet pull off their criminal schemes.
Had I seen THIS article as #1 in the series I would have had a FAR greater amount of respect for both the writer and the online publisher.
Paul is right that Carter massages his message to fit particular audiences. In front of the Brandeis audience, he spent considerable time claiming that some of his best friends are Jews and apologizing for some of his mistakes. You hear none of that on Al Jazeera.
I share Craig's distress about the ADA, which I strongly support and have used in litigation on behalf of disabled Americans.
Perhaps the professor is trying to initiate a dialogue about Carter's expressed concern about politicians who might be intimidated by pro-Israel influence.... Maybe Dr. D is interested in asserting that some of his best friends are Palestinians and he is sure the people in Palestine are mostly happy with their lives except for the intrusion of 'outside agitators'..... Or. just maybe, Alan, you have a problem associated with historic references to civilizations which are thousands of years old and described in various collected verbal hand-me-downs writ to annoint professed prophets and their opportunistic followers to justify endless tit for tat vengeful retaliation over the last, worst inhumanity suffered by one or the other side in this endless self-righteous ignorance that is the cradle of civilization (or is it 'inhumanity'?).
Get over it!
The fact is that this highly promoted Gather 'discussion' waltzes menacingly around fundamental issues of war and peace in a troubled world. Israeli political/military decisions over the past 20 years do not seem to have repaired or improved the fundamental differences and disagreements which have paralyzed the Middle East for the past several thousands of years, vast intellectual and scientific superiority notwithstanding.
Carter's effort to engage this discussion was not a call for partisans to engage him in personal debate. More likely, I believe, his treatise is an admonition that the participants in such a debate over future policy would continue their destructive path in order to incrimentally improve their respective positions a little more before agreeeing to agree or, worse, to get one more pound of flesh before settling down to talk. The 'leaders' of both sides will find some means of avoiding or obfuscating to insure they don't have to engage in changing the basics of why they are presently in power.
You are not part of the solution in your current attack mode, ocassional praises notwithstanding. You are part of the problem by pointing the finger of blame.
That being said, perhaps Carters lecture was not the right place for that debate. At his advanced age, perhaps his mind is no longer sharp enough to answer tough opposing questions in a live forum. You may have tried this but perhaps a letter posing your question to him directly would be better. He will have time to nap and reboot his brain when he needs to, and I am sure you would get an answer that you could share with us. For my part I have great respect for our Ex-president and wish him nothing but the best.
The problem as I see it in the Palistine Israel question is that both side have so much pride and arrogance in their own culture and religion that it is impossible for them to see a solution clearly.
About Carter's comment that America needs to take a lesser role. I believe that comes from the credibility of American foreign policy being shreded by our current administration. If I were a world leader I would wait to see what the next administration did to restore that credibility before engaging in any talks with them. Our nation is now percieved as liars and war-mongers to much of the world. I don't trust us either.
I acknowledge my progressive leanings by admitting that I most admire and seek the inciteful, honest, concerned, progressive and honorable (to me) insights of a variety of Americans. In no significance of order, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Bill Moyers and Molly Ivans (now lost to us) all have stated views and opinions on contemporary issues which make me try to think rather than make me FEEL. On reflection, it makes me feel good to try to think.
Fortunately, Mr. Carter's statesmanship shines through again. Sadly, you're still throwing out the same old jew-bashing "bait. " Those who are intelligent enough to evaluate Mr. Carter's book as an earnest effort to call attention to imbalances in the approach to peace in the middle east, which in many aspects do in fact constitute apartheid, also see through your efforts to discredit his work and in doing so perpetuate the footdragging down the roadmap to peace.
Perhaps you could get over "it" and write a book on Prince Bandar vis a vis his relationship with the Bush family -- that should shed some light on the situation.
Snippets culled from blogs and news articles intent on proving "if it bleeds, it leads!" apparently inflame your anger. The frustration you project suggests you have found the 'truth' that satisfies you - but others who disagree with you or see things differently are somehow evil.
Finding someone to blame or selecting simple answers to complicated problems seldom offers hope for finding solutions. In most such instances one side must obliterate the other by force of arms, superior numbers or control of all the means of communication ... all three of which could be used to define the alleged acts in the Pattani village or the presumably necessary invasion of Iraq or the retaliation following last year's kidnapping of two Israeli policemen. Have your sources indicated where those two are - by any chance?
And, what is the lust in your heart?
And, for clarity, please let us know how Israel's Supreme Court CONTROLS government abuse - before, during or after it occurs ?!
(BTW, I also thought that Deven's post was good, as was your response.)
I doubt if it were not for the fact that Israel has the support of the major Western powers that it's military aggression against Lebanon and against the Palestinians would have gone unpunished. Then again, modern Israel would not have existed if it had not been for these same Western powers.
Dr. D's "Let me first state categorically as someone who has been involved in human rights for half a century, that no country, faced with comparable threats to its security, has ever had a higher standard of human rights and compliance with the rule of law." suggests a pompous attitude of superority in perception and experience. "Comparable threats"? "Higher standard of human rights"? "Compliance with THE rule of law"? What is he saying?
"Dealt ,,, in a way more compliant with standards..." what does that mean?
Even the most aggressive ideologues participating in this discussion have not proposed using a "double standard" to judge anybody. Each side seemingly ignores or denies the other's methods and selections for making judgements, but they haven't suggested that one set of principles should apply to Palestinians and a different set to Israel. ... so I guess I wasn't as impressed by Dr. Dershowitz's response as you.
In honesty, though, I do hold Alan to a higher standard than the rest of us. Given his Harvard professorship, reknown as a jurist and significant credentials as an advocate for various causes, I am underwhelmed.
So it would probably be good if mainstream Israelis can do more to address these issues themselves and respond to the most eggregious allegations in a way that puts things into context, but also responds directly to these accusations. When Finkelstein debated a representative of AIPAC on "Democracy Now" and the issue of hostages was brought up, F. insisted that the Israelis are holding "10,000 Palestinian hostages." His interlocutor was incensed by the accusation, but he didn't really respond directly, so F. could leave the debate with a smug "I told you so."
Here is one link for "Fighting Terrorism Within the Law," and I hope it's the same document Prof. Dershowitz refers to:
http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/2005/israel/01/0501022007.html
"there will never be peace in Israel as long as Palestine is allowed to exist "
I hear others say,
"there will never be peace in Palestine as long as Israel is allowed to exist "
Maybe Peace can only be found if both Israel and Palestine cease to exist or maybe the world progresses to the point that most realize that all religions are the basis for most conflicts and should be ignored and left in ancient times where they were made up by power hungry men trying to control the unruly masses.
Let me respond to Brian's criticism of my use of the word Islamofascist. I stand by it and will continue to use it. It says nothing about Islam in general. What it says is that some within Islam, for example Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian leadership, and the Saudi royal family, misuse Islam to promote a fascist ideology that denies individuals the right to dissent. There are Jewish fascists as well, and I would not hesitate to use a comparable term to describe them. There are, however, many more Islamofascists than Jewish fascists, both in absolute and relative numbers, and they are far more influential . Do you disagree? If so, provide evidence.
You may have to wait a long time to find the answer to your query. It has a tricky , legalistic, impared-jury quality about it.
What does faced with COMPARABLE threats mean? Is a country rife with CIA operatives and renditions a threat? A resource rich nation enjoying the competetive military investments by diverse corporate saviors? Did the indigenous Nations of the Americas face a comparable threat? Do scud missles represent a threat equivalent to storm troopers, gas chambers and V2 rockets?
Does the Saudi royal family use facist or monorchical 'ideology?
Does 'compliance with the rule of law' mean acceptance of the decisions of the World Court? Is the rule of law biblical?, secular?, subject to lobbyists' legislative input?, appropriately ignored through the use of 'signing statements? Kinda broad, huh?
And while I am venting, you may feel justified in rationalizing name calling. But, as someone who has been involved in human rights for half a century, you are undoubtedly familiar with the propaganda value and political impact of "bed-wetting, booger-eating, Commie, pinko, cut and run, n-loving, liberal do-gooders" as a long running call to arms that gave us the past 20 years of division in the USA.
Your momma probably told you, If you can't say something nice ..."
How do you quantify these numbers Alan? And by what definition of Fascism do you equate the various groups, governments with Fascism? There are reprehensible attritbutes within several of thos groups/governments you have referred to (one at least, close allies of each US government in the past and to date). I have indicated why I believe the Israeli state shares attributes with various imperialist powers, including fascist powers, of the past. Which attributes of Fascist ideology do you associate with any of the groups you mention, OTHER than "fascist ideology that denies individuals the right to dissent." That particular attribute of Fascism is not the exclusive to Fascism alone. Nominally Communist and Capitalist countries share and have shared that particular. The "The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law" is also clearly an attempt to retain the "purity of the race", as it discriminates against Israeli Arabs whose partners live in the Occupied Territories.
Unlike you Alan I would not choose to associate ANY religion with the stigma of Fascism and it's odious past. To casually use the phrase "Islamofascist" does nothing more than promote hatred against the followers of Islam, whom, I hope you would agree, are overwhelmingly peaceful people, just as most Christians, Jews and other faiths and none, are.
I challenge you to unequivocally state that you do not associate the religion of Islam with Fascism, rather than certain groups/governments. You have said nothing so far that leads me to believe that you are not condemning all Muslims with that most offensive term. It is a propandist's term, nothing more, nothing less.
Charles, if one was to use the term Judaeofascism it would be comparable. I think you and Mr Dershowtiz understand that there is a difference between the Israeli state, and the religion of Judaism. There is no comparable term to Islamofascist which can be used against the political entity that is the Israeli state. There is no term which demonises Jews, or Christians in the way that the phrase Islamofascist demonises Muslims as is it's intention.
Can you imagine the term Judaeofasicst EVER being used in the media. The answer is a resounding No, and for obvious reasons. The linking of any religion, or ideology, or group, with the term "fascist" or "fascism" is clear, it is to demonise that group. It in no way excludes any of that group's members, it is an all-encompassing term.
That is very clear, as are it's intentions. It is a loaded term with a sinister purpose.
You will never get through to them brother. And they wont Answer your question Prof. D. As Bruce already demonstrated, they cant, there are no other countries that have ever dealt with what Israel has had to.
I very much doubt it. The Right-wing have very short memories when it comes to remembering who their friends once were.
"That is the core of the conflict. It is Palestinian terror, not Israeli policy, which prevents peace."
Dualists always need to blame someone else, can never take any responsibility !
If I am ever proven wrong in that, I just might become ANTI-something.
"The linking of any religion, or ideology, or group, with the term "fascist" or "fascism" is clear, it is to demonise that group. It in no way excludes any of that group's members, it is an all-encompassing term. "
Call Al Qaeda or whoever, terrorists, call them mass murdering trash with no noble agenda save death and domination. Refer to their fundamentalist view of their perverted form of Islam if you are discussing them BUT there is absolutely no reason to generalise by linking the religion of Islam with these bringers of death.
You and Mr Dershowitz probably believe that Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah etc are all cut from the same cloth, and judging by Alan's comment, most of the Islamic world (certainly it's leadership. I however can quite easily distinguish between the goals of Hezbollah, Hamas etc from Al Qaeda. Ok, so some of them maybe use (unrealistic) aggressive language about the destruction of Israel, butI see that as more wishful thinking on their part. At the same time however I do believe that each is fighting for the Palestinian cause to some degree, and I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with that.
I repeat, Islamofascist is a gratuitously offensive, sinister phrase. Use it if you like, but it denotes hatred of Islam.
There is no New Anti-Semitism
by Rabbi Michael Lerner
The N.Y. Times reported on January 31 about the most recent attempt by the American Jewish Community to conflate intense criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. In a neat little example of slippery slope, the report on "Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism" written by Alvin H. Rosenfeld moves from exposing the actual anti-Semitism of those who deny Israel's right to exist—and hence deny to the Jewish people the same right to national self-determination that they grant to every other people on the planet (the anti-war group International Answer is a good example of that, though Rosenfeld doesn't cite them)—to those who powerfully and consistently attack Israel's policies toward Palestinians, see Israel as racist the way that it treats Israeli-Arabs (or even Sephardic Jews), or who analogize Israel's policies to those of apartheid as instituted by South Africa.
The Anti-Defamation League sponsored a conference on this same topic in San Francisco on Jan.28, conspicuously failing to invite Tikkun, Jewish Voices for Peace and Brit Tzedeck ve Shalom, the three major Jewish voices critiquing Israeli policy yet also strong supporters of Israel's security.
Meanwhile, the media has been abuzz with stories of Jews denouncing former President Jimmy Carter for his book Palestine: Peace or Apartheid. The same charges of anti-Semitism that have consistently been launched against anyone who criticizes Israeli policy is now being launched against the one American leader who managed to create a lasting (albeit cold) peace between Israel and a major Arab state (Egypt). Instead of seriously engaging with the issues raised (e.g. to what extent are Israel's current policies similar to those of apartehid and to what extent are they not?) the Jewish establishment and media responds by attacking the people who raise these or any other critiques--shifting the discourse to the legitimacy of the messenger and thus avoiding the substance of the criticisms. Knowing this, many people become fearful that they too will be labeled "anti-Semitic" if they question the wisdom of Israeli policies or if they seek to organize politically to challenge those policies.
Yet there is nothing "new" about this or about this alleged anti-Semitism that these mainstream Jewish voices seek to reveal. From the moment I started Tikkun Magazine twenty years ago as "the liberal alternative to Commentary and the voices of Jewish conservatism and spiritual deadness in the organized Jewish community" our magazine has been attacked in much of the organized Jewish community as "self-hating Jews" (though our editorial advisory board contains some of the most creative Jewish theologians, rabbis, Israeli peace activist and committed fighters for social justice). The reason? We believe that Israeli policy toward Palestinians, manifested most dramatically in the Occupation of the West Bank for what will soon be forty years and in the refusal of Israel to take any moral responsibility for its part in the creation of the Arab refugee problem, is immoral, irrational, self-destructive, a violation of the highest values of the Jewish people, and a serious impediment to world peace.
What the Jewish establishment organizations have done is to make invisible the strong roots in Judaism for a different kind of policy. The most frequently repeated injunction in Torah are variations of the following command: "Do not oppress the stranger (the 'other'). Remember that you were strangers in the land of Egypt." Instead, the Jewish establishment has turned Judaism into a cheer-leading religion for a particular national state that has a lot of Jews, but has seriously lost site of the Jewish values which early Zionists hoped would find realization there.
The impact of the silencing of debate about Israeli policy on Jewish life has been devastating. We at Tikkun are constantly encountering young Jews who say that they can no longer identify with their Jewishness, because they have been told that their own intuitive revulsion at watching the Israeli settlers with IDF support violate the human rights of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank or their own questioning of Israel's right to occupy the West Bank are proof that they are "self-hating Jews." The Jewish world is driving away its own young.
But the most destructive impact of this new Jewish Political Correctness is on American foreign policy debates. We at Tikkun have been involved in trying to create a liberal alternative to AIPAC and the other Israel-can-do-no-wrong voices in American politics. When we talk to Congressional representatives who are liberal or even extremely progressive on every other issue, they tell us privately that they are afraid to speak out about the way Israeli policies are destructive to the best interests of the United States or the best interests of world peace—lest they too be labeled anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. If it can happen to Jimmy Carter, some of them told me recently, a man with impeccable moral credentials, then no one is really politically safe.
When this bubble of repression of dialogue explodes into open resentment at the way Jewish Political correctness has been imposed, it may really yield a "new" anti-Semitism. To prevent that, the voices of dissent on Israeli policy must be given the same national exposure in the media and American politics that the voices of the Jewish establishment have been given.
We hope that the creation of our INTEFAITH Network of Spiritual Progressives (NSP at www.spiritualprogressives.org) can provide a safe context for this kind of discussion among the many Christians, Muslims, Unitarians, Hindus, Buddhists and secular-but-not-religious people who share some of the criticisms of Israel and who will eventually try to challenge the kind of anti-Semitism that might be released against Jews once the resentment about Jewish Political Correctness on Israel does explode. Even better if we could succeed in creating a powerful alternative to AIPAC. Unfortunately, that path is not so easy. When we approached some of the Israel peace groups to form an alliance with us to build the alternative to AIPAC we found that the hold of the Jewish Establishment was so powerful that it had managed to seep into the brains of people in organizations like Americans for Peace Now (NOT the Israeli group Peace Now which has been very courageous), Brit Tzedeck ve'Shalom and the Israel Policy Forum or the Religious Action Center of the Reform movement--and as a result these peace voices are continually fearful that they will be "discredited" if they align with each other and with us to create this alternative to AIPAC. Meanwhile, while they look over their right shoulders fearfully, the very people that they fear will "discredit" them for aligning with each other and with us are ALREADY discrediting them as much as they possibly can.
Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun (www.tikkun.org), author of the 2006 NY Times best-seller The Left Hand of God (Harper San Francisco), and national chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives (www.spiritualprogressives.org). RabbiLerner@tikkun.org
Thank you for the post of Rabbi Lerner's ... I am so glad to hear from 'that' side of the issue. It is hard to tell sometimes that there are sane, intelligent, Jewish peace seekers of truth and fairness out there when all you have otherwise to compare to is the conservative extreme far right apologists that are so mouthy here.
Rabbi Lerner's messages and his magazine Tikkun, are the hope for the mid east ... at least for those that prefer peace for all. It is a lot more difficult, yet far more satisfying, to seek peace than conflict. It seems that far too many want to settle everything by force ... a trait of inferior intelligence and an excessive fear and hatred.
I wonder if you had this same hatred and fear of Islam before George and co. got to work on you. Pakistan has had the nuclear bomb for a few years now, have you been terrified since you learned that? Have you been terrified since the Saudis got their oil? What about the other Middle eastern states, are you terrified of them too? I'm sure you have been cruelly victimised by the hordes of Muslim fanatacists that cruise the streets looking for the lonely Westerner.
Oh sorry, I forgot their targets are generally "gentle Budhist ice cream peddlars".
I have never read such garbage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dershowitz-Finkelstein_affair
Finkelstein's criticisms of Dershowitz
In Beyond Chutzpah, Finkelstein provides evidence that in at least two instances, Dershowitz reproduces errors in Peters' citiation of original sources, and claims Dershowitz did not check the original sources he cited. The book was published by the University of California Press (UCP) on June 1, 2005 despite threats of legal action and an appeal to the Governor of California by Alan Dershowitz [1].
Finkelstein noted that in twenty instances that all occur within about as many pages, Dershowitz's book excerpts the same words from the same sources that Joan Peters used, largely in the same order. Several paragraph-long quotes that the two books share have ellipses in the same position, Finkelstein pointed out; and in one instance Dershowitz referenced the same page number as Peters, although he was citing a different edition (a 1996 edition) of the source, in which the words appear on a different page.[2].
Finkelstein suggests that this copying of quotations amounts to copying ideas, and plagiarism is defined as "passing off a source's information, ideas, or words as your own by omitting to cite them." [3]. "Finkelstein does not accuse Dershowitz of the wholesale lifting of someone else's words, but he does make a very strong case that Dershowitz has violated the spirit, if not the exact letter, of Harvard's prohibitions of the first three forms of plagiarism." (Michael C. Desch, The American Conservative, December 5, 2005) [4].
Noting Dershowitz's lack of knowledge about specific contents of his own book during a debate,[5] Finkelstein also sarcastically claimed that Dershowitz could not have written the book, and may not have even read it. He later cited the presence of "unserious" references, including the web site for a documentary film [6] and an online high school syllabus [7], as further evidence that the book was ghostwritten.[8]
October 3, 2003 letter to the Harvard Crimson that Dershowitz reproduced exactly two of Peters' mistakes, and made one relevant mistake of his own. In quoting Mark Twain, "Dershowitz cites two paragraphs from Twain as continuous text, just as Peters cites them as continuous text, but in Twain's book the two paragraphs are separated by 87 pages." Furthermore, still quoting Twain, although Dershowitz cites a different edition of Twain's Innocents Abroad than Joan Peters cites, "the relevant quotes do not appear on these pages in the edition of Twain's book that Dershowitz cites." The quotes do, however, appear on the pages Joan Peters cites for her edition of Innocents Abroad. Finally, Finkelstein notes that "Quoting a statement depicting the miserable fate of Jews in mid-19th century Jerusalem, Peters cites a British consular letter from 'Wm. T. Young to Viscount Canning.' Dershowitz cites the same statement as Peters, reporting that Young 'attributed the plight of the Jew in Jerusalem' to pervasive anti-Semitism. Turning to the original, however, we find that the relevant statement did not come from Young but, as is unmistakably clear to anyone who actually consulted the original, from an enclosed memorandum written by an 'A. Benisch' that Young was forwarding to Canning." Finkelstein concludes that "It would be impossible for anyone who checked the original source[s] to make th[ese] error[s]." Dershowitz has not responded to these charges, but characterized the excerpts as quotations that historians and scholars of the region cite routinely, such as Mark Twain and the reports of government commissions.
The conclusion Finkelstein drew from the similarities was that Dershowitz had not researched his sources directly, but instead in twenty instances had used Peters' book and without crediting her. Finkelstein found a mis-attribution that he said supported this conclusion. In writing his book, Dershowitz had attributed an Orwellian neologism to Orwell himself, when actually Peters had coined it in her book in an allusion to Orwell, in which she mentioned him by name (her neologism "turnspeak" resembles the 1984 author's "Newspeak"). The mistake by Dershowitz, Finkelstein said, fit a pattern of cribbing from Peters while not crediting her. Academic propriety demanded that she be credited, he said.
Norman Finkelstein attempts to debunk The Case for Israel in his book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Misuse of History, which was published by University of California Press on August 28, 2005. Dershowitz responded to the imminent publication of Finkelstein's book by threatening the publisher[10], claiming it contained massive libel and stating that the book should not be published. Additionally, Dershowitz asked California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in a letter to quash the book[11], but Schwarzenegger's legal advisor replied that the governor will not intervene in issues of academic freedom. Dershowitz responded in his book The Case for Peace, and alleges a politically motivated campaign of vilification spearheaded by Chomsky, Finkelstein and Cockburn against several pro-Israel academics.
On the basis of Finkelstein's comparisons, political commentator Alexander Cockburn joined him in concluding that Dershowitz had drawn his excerpts directly from Peters' book. This he characterized as unscholarly. Noting a footnote in which Dershowitz referred to the controversial status of Peters' book and said that he did not "rely" on it for "conclusions or data," Cockburn assessed Dershowitz furthermore as having more or less lied about what Cockburn and Finkelstein concluded he had done. Echoing Finkelstein's charge of plagiarism, Cockburn called on Harvard to fire Dershowitz as a professor.
Oxford academic Avi Shlaim has also been critical of Dershowitz, saying he believes that the charge of plagiarism "is proved in a manner that would stand up in court" (Times Higher Education Supplement, 16 December, 2005 (12)).
1. http://www.workingtv.com/finkelstein.html
2. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1
3. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=50
4. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=98
5. http://www.democracynow.org/static/dershowitzFin.shtml
6. http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/oneday/html/timeline/index.html
7. http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentkeydates.html
8. http://www.theexperiment.org/articles.php?news_id=1991
9. http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349123
10. http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,1545972,00.html
11. http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,1545972,00.html
12. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=112
Carol, I did catch the CNN presentation as you suggested above. It came across as the typical dove attempting to give the truth about the possibility of peace around viewpoints ... as 'opposed' by the typical 'hawk' with the opposite viewpoint using his talons to rip apart and attempt to destroy ... in this case the tactics of a criminal lawyer very versed and experienced in such confrontational tricks. (one of which was talking across and over the dove very disrespectfully)
"Not only did Carter refuse to debate me; he refused to debate anybody. Now some of the same hard-left radical students and faculty who invited him to speak at Brandeis-and tried to censor me and others-have invited Norman Finkelstein to deliver an address at the university."
Was Carter, in fact, invited there for a debate? If he was he should have engaged in such debate. If not efforts to denigrate him because he didn't "take you on" are futile. This forum will post opposing comments mostly based on personal bias and resolve nothing in the mix except increase the sales of President Carter's book.
You, as a well known personality, should consider writing a book, not impugning Carters motives, associations or finances, but rather about the facts listed in his book and documenting anything that is documentably non-factual. That would be much more impressive than this dialog could ever be!
Dershowitz's denials fail to convince
Alan Dershowitz's denial of plagiarisms ("Dershowitz denies plagiarism charges," Oct.. 9) rings hollow. The wholesale lifting of quotations from Joan Peters' fraudulent book "From Time Immemorial" (1984) cannot be justified (see www.normanfinkelstein.com for a table documenting this). To use more than twenty exact quotes from another book without making due acknowledgments really does constitute a fatal failure of scholarship.
One certainly hopes that first-year Harvard Law students will not follow Dershowitz's examples!
Dershowitz's attack on Finkelstein is also unfounded and baseless. Finkelstein's scholarly work has been praised by, among others, Christopher R. Browning, Raul Hilberg, Ian Kershaw, Arno Mayer, and William Quandt. His four books, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict," "The Rise and Fall of Palestine," "A Nation on Trial," and "The Holocaust Industry" are major contributions, which were highly regarded by experts. His papers have been instrumental in exposing Peters' fraud and the errors of Goldhagen's book. Finkelstein's scholarship is guided by humanitarian values, as taught by his parents, both of whom lived through the Warsaw ghetto and the Nazi concentrations camps.
Whereas Dershowitz has rationalized collective punishment against Palestinian villagers and denied that Israel uses torture on Palestinians (in spite of reports from international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International), and given tacit approval of the use of torture, Finkelstein has expressed solidarity with Palestinians and indeed stayed with Palestinian families living under Israel's brutal military occupation.
Charles, can you please supply me with a link to any type of official statement from Harvard?
BUT ... can it be believed ? Would such a person as that reviewer spin, twist, distort anything ?? Could that reviewer have an agenda ???
OR ... will YOU be an apologist for the apologists ... as if you are not already.
I place, at least, a comparable value on the intuitive spiritual subjective of the 'essence' of ALL truths involved ... such allows some potential for real peace.
(+/-) = :-(
(+=-)= :-)
I will attempt to be more peaceful, thanks again.
Im from the Uk where the UCU has voted to boycott Israeli academics. I have to laugh at the irony that there has been no similarof boycott on Syria, Saudi Arabia, and a collection of other nefarious states in the region.
The far left in the UK and from what I understand in the USA, have become dangerously infected with antisemitism. One should not be shy of identifying it for what it is.
Isaac, I share your incredulity. Incredibly gross human rights violations occur daily in Gaza. But whom does the UCU vote to boycott? Israel, natch!
I've always thought that Jimmy Carter was completely earnest and sincere. In recent years he seems to be getting further and further removed from reality. Well, he *is* getting older. Do you suppose he's also getting senile?